Senate pushes back on Fair Elections Act

A Conservative-dominated Senate committee is urging the government to introduce several major amendments to the Fair Elections Act before it passes in the House of Commons.

An interim report released Tuesday by the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee recommends nine changes to the electoral reform bill – including removing a spending provision that many experts say favour the Conservatives – but leaves some of most contentious issues unaddressed.

The 12-person committee recommends the government alter a provision that allows robocalls documents to be destroyed after three years rather than one year as that Bill C-23 currently states. Destruction after one year, the Commissioner of Elections Canada Yves Côté, told the committee, would negatively affect his ability to complete investigations.

The report also suggests the removal of a clause that many critics have said would “muzzle” the chief electoral officer and the commissioner of canada elections from informing the public about completed investigations, and any problems with the electoral system. It also suggests the bill should specifically authorize communication between the commissioner – who will be moved to the Department of the Public Prosecutor under the bill – and the CEO of Elections Canada.

Although the Senate committee does propose some changes to make voting easier, including placing the photographs of candidates on ballots, and encouraging Elections Canada to provide information about the availability of braille ballots to individuals with vision loss, the official committee report does not discuss the controversial elimination of vouching and the use of voter information cards as acceptable ID.

During the committee meeting Conservative Senator Linda Frum suggested attestation forms were essentially a form of vouching. Attestations however, are a written form of recognizing a voter’s name and address and present logistical hurdles that vouching does not. The report recommends legally requiring old age homes, universities and first nations groups to attest somebody’s address and identity.

Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre says the Senate has done a “thoughtful study of the bill” and is open to studying the recommendations.

“The committee’s report has just been released and I look forward to studying it carefully and with an open mind. I have always been open to ways we can make a great bill even better,” a statement from Poilievre’s office reads.

Senate Liberal caucus member George Baker, also the deputy chair of the committee, says the bill’s future is at risk if the minister decides not to listen the committee’s recommendations.

If the House of Commons does not accept the recommendations, Baker thinks the Fair Elections Act has a good shot of being defeated when it comes to a vote in the Senate.

“If they don’t make those amendments, when the bill goes through the House of Commons and comes back to the Senate, it would obviously be amended in the Senate and then sent back to the House of Commons, and then again. Then it will never pass by the June deadline,” he says.

Even if the nine amendments are adopted, Baker says he will not support the bill. Without removing the requirement to show proof of address and the provision to eliminate vouching, Baker says the Fair Elections Act is “unconstitutional.”

Conservative Senator Denise Batters disagrees with Baker, saying the Fair Elections Act is constitutional and will be “strengthened” by the proposed amendments. Batters did not want to discuss the hypothetical situation of what would happen the Fair Elections Act is passed in the House without the Senate’s proposed amendments, instead saying she is open to hearing ways the recommendations can be improved or “accomplished.”

While some argue the “pre-study” was a way to fast-track the bill through the Senate, Batters says the pre-study gave the Senate additional time to understand and critically examine the bill.

“I think it allowed the Senate to fully play its role, maybe in a little different way, but in a very helpful way and we were absolutely justified to push for a pre-study on this bill,” she says.

Numerous critics, including former Auditor General Sheila Fraser and the CEO of Elections Canada Marc Mayrand, have said the elimination of vouching will disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters. The government has argued the move will improve the integrity of the electoral system, and will be a big step forward in preventing voter fraud.

The commissioner’s ability to compel witness testimony was also left out of the official report. Conservatives on the Senate committee argued the commissioner should not have more powers than law enforcement.

In his testimony before the Senate committee, Côté said his ability to complete investigations is seriously hampered without that ability. Witnesses, he said, do not have to co-oporate with Elections Canada, and can refuse to testify.

A minority report, published by the three Liberals on the committee, was attached to the interim report. In it, the Liberals highlight their belief that the bill is unconstitutional and will likely face a court challenge if the provision on vouching is not significantly altered or removed.

The seven amendments presented in the minority report represent changes that were not unanimously adopted by the Senate committee. Senator Baker says he is hopeful the House of Commons will adopt some of the recommendations in the minority report.

As part of its “pre-study” of the bill, the Senate has heard from 21 witnesses during its six committee meetings. A few more meetings are scheduled when the Senate returns after the two-week Easter break.

The House of Commons held concurrent meetings on C-23 and is expected to go to clause-by-clause by May 1st.

8 comments on “Senate pushes back on Fair Elections Act”

The only 2nd sober thoughts come from the 3 minority Senators who – propose giving the commissioner power to compel witness testimony during investigations. Without that this is just the Senate covering up CPC’s corruption of 2011!

How can the Conservatives argue that the Chief Electoral Officer should not have “more powers than law enforcement”? He or she absolutely should have as much legal authority as is necessary to uphold and enforce the law—the Elections Act. The Conservatives’ “Fair Elections Bill” wants to assume this authority themselves which obviously conflicts with the fact that each and every one of them is elected.

VANCOUVER SUN APRIL 16, 2014
“The federal Conservative government has been for the last four weeks fighting a rising tide of opposition to Bill C-23, otherwise known as the Fair Elections Act.

Curiously though, as the number of dissenters has grown, their voices have been dismissed, not with reasoned arguments, but in attacks on the critics themselves.

These critics now include many people, from former auditor general Sheila Fraser to chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand to a parade of academics, politicians and pundits. You’re either with us, the Conservatives have told them, or you’re a self-styled agitator, liberal-media type, power-hungry bureaucrat.

You’re either with us or you are clearly not an “ordinary Canadian.”

It’s an emotional tactic that wore thin long ago, about the time former Justice Minister Vic Toews failed to push his Internet surveillance bill through with a “you’re either with us or you’re with the child pornographers.”

As editorial board editors in the Postmedia company, we have today united to publish a collection of excerpts about Bill C-23 from our newsrooms across the country. We hope and believe that,if the newspapers in Canada’s major cities speak on a single day on this single issue, we can show all Canadians how critical this issue is, and more important, advocate for change.

Some may say we’re not one of them. We are.

Some may say we don’t speak for “ordinary Canadians.” We do.

This is no longer a matter of partisan politics, nor should it ever have been about partisan politics. It’s a matter of ensuring fair elections for the future, for all Canadians.